If you took money away from the prize fund for each draw then you would have no world championship match as neither player would agree to that. [for obvious reasons]
I do not find the two draws boring as [to me] the variations and possible variations were interesting.
Both players know they can only have a chance to win if the other player makes a mistake. So both try very hard not to make a mistake. Mistake free games lead to draws.
If you took money away from the prize fund for each draw then you would have no world championship match as neither player would agree to that. [for obvious reasons]
I do not find the two draws boring as [to me] the variations and possible variations were interesting.
Both players know they can only have a chance to win if the other player makes a mistake. So both try very hard not to make a mistake. Mistake free games lead to draws.
Agreed. The thing is you need to give the players a greater incentive to play more "exciting" chess, while at the same time not altering too many of the traditional match conditions so radically such that no player would ever agree to the new ones.
So from that standpoint, I think it'd be better to reward a player for winning more games, as opposed to punishing them for drawing more games...more prize fund money rewarded to the winner for each extra half-point he beats the loser by has been my idea.
And while I haven't been especially fond of the games played so far, I agree they're not as "boring" as some players are trying to make them out to be either.
If you took money away from the prize fund for each draw then you would have no world championship match as neither player would agree to that. [for obvious reasons]
I do not find the two draws boring as [to me] the variations and possible variations were interesting.
Both players know they can only have a chance to win if the other player makes a mistake. So both try very hard not to make a mistake. Mistake free games lead to draws.
An alternative strategy might be to try and give your opponent opportunities to make a mistake.
I dunno what the fuss is about. I found it pretty fascinating that anand admitted he wasn't prepared for that line of attack and went for a draw. It's a great insight into how these guys prep.
I can not wait till he admits that his hands hurt when makes a move in the game.
@ MSC157. Abolishing the tie-breaks for world championship matches will not solve the problem of short drawn games even if a match was to be scheduled to last 16 games or 24 games. FIDE needs to reinstitute ''The Fischer Rule'' which required players to play a minimum of 30 moves before a player could offer a draw.
(page 5)
Yes it would. Challenger would play more interesting chess. Challenger challenges defending champion who defends. Logical. Natural.
I dunno what the fuss is about. I found it pretty fascinating that anand admitted he wasn't prepared for that line of attack and went for a draw. It's a great insight into how these guys prep.
Well the version of chess he was playing was Over-The-Board (OTB). 
If Super-GMs dont play for which they are not prepared, then club players like me are better who think while playing and dont try to repeat the position un-necessarily. There is no problem with draws, but 2 games with 3 nove repetition draw...well 
Does some one have data how many WC games last year were 3 move repetition draws? (Anand-Gelfand 2012)
ponz111 wrote:
Both players know they can only have a chance to win if the other player makes a mistake. So both try very hard not to make a mistake. Mistake free games lead to draws.
Lou : sorry but this is true for soccer also. But they at least play until the end and push for victory.
@ Vease. Although a draw by three-fold repetition of position can occur as early as right after White's fifth move (e.g., N-KB3, N-KB3, N-N1, N-N1, N-KB3,N-KB3, N-N1, N-N1, N-KB3), games drawn by three-fold repetition of position where the games lasted less than 30 moves are rare compared to the overwhelming majority of chess games played, so the FIDE should reinstitute ''The Fischer Rule'' requiring players to play a minimum of thirty moves before they can offer a draw. Fischer was right to recommend that rule and the FIDE should not have rescinded that rule after they instituted it.
So basically you're saying then that in the first game of this particular match, Carlsen and Anand should have either been forced to play Qb3,Na5; Qa3,Nc4; Qb3... until they hit move 30 (ridiculous), or else one of the players should have been forced to deviate, which means forced to play a perceived inferior move (also ridiculous).
There's a reason why there isn't a rule like that in place, and it's because it's nothing short of being thoroughly stupid.
The rules of chess say that a draw by threefold repetition can happen anytime, thats usually how the players get around the so called 'Sofia' rules so it doesn't matter whether you say No Draw Offers Before Move X or not, if theres a three fold repetition after 15 moves or whatever the game is a draw.
World Championship matches have had 85 percent draws since the days of Botvinnik, its nothing new but the 12 game format makes it worse.
3 fold draw is a loss for the first player to make the 3rd move -before the 40th move.
I remember once Anand played a vote chess with chess.com. Guess how many moves it took? Under 15 if I remember correctly. 
I do not find the two draws boring as [to me] the variations and possible variations were interesting.
My thoughts, too.
Spassky- Petrosian 1966; 6 draws before a win. Karpov-Korchnoi 1978; 7 draws before a win. Kasparov- Anand 1995; 8 draws before a win. Carlsen- Anand 2 draws so far. And you all are bitching like there is something wrong ?
+1
The action will pick up.Carlsen will catch Anand in a TN.
Who thinks Carlsen will uncork the King's Gambit for game 3?
Who thinks Carlsen will uncork the King's Gambit for game 3?
Funniest thing I've read in a while! :D
I predicted all draws on that betting website so so far I am happy.
How much did you bet?
Two games were drawn and we hear a chorus of "boring" and "not fighting hard enough" but I will bet most of those who make the claims of "boring" and "not fighting hard enough" had little idea what was going on in the two games.
I am old school on this. a draw is a draw...BUT...the format could be changed to encourage more fight by implementing football('sic' soccer) scoring. one point for a draw (handshake) and three points for a win (Goooooaaaallll!!!!!) I imagine there would be more fighting games. Just a thought. Still love the game and still hate early draws but I am a hack at chess so who cares what I think?!
NO. Doesn't work for the world championship because its a zero sum game anyway. whoever wins more games wins the match.
Looking like whoever gets a W in the win column first will the match.